Your message dated Sun, 19 Apr 2026 13:45:26 +0200
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#1133866: RM: binutils-arm-none-eabi/23 -- ROM; now
built from binutils-embedded
has caused the Debian Bug report #1133866,
regarding RM: binutils-arm-none-eabi/23 -- ROM; now built from binutils-embedded
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
1133866: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1133866
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: [email protected],
[email protected]
Control: affects -1 + src:binutils-arm-none-eabi
User: [email protected]
Usertags: rm
I've merged two embedded binutils binary packages
(binutils-arm-none-eabi, binutils-riscv64-unknown-elf) into a single
source package (binutils-embedded) and added a third
(binutils-aarch64-none-elf).
I had assumed that removing this package from unstable would eventually
cause it to be removed from testing; in case that isn't true, this bug
is a request to explicitly remove it from testing.
--
-keith
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,
On 4/15/26 22:52, Keith Packard wrote:
I just checked and I can't spot any piece that is not fixed in unstable,
so I guess britney2 just got too confused by the src:binutils-embedded
taking over the binaries and what it all implied. I'll extend my hint
with the packages that have different versions between unstable and
testing in the set above and hope that that will help.
Yeah, I kinda wondered if something just got confused. In theory, this
is just a change in the source package name which should generate
compatible binary packages.
Beyond this, there may be more adventures ahead with gcc-arm-none-eabi
and gcc-riscv64-unknown-elf as those *do* break some packages in
testing. I think all of those have been marked appropriately in
unstable, but I don't know how that will carry into testing.
In trying to simplify my life, I appear to have made a lot of things
more complicated, at least in the short term... Sorry for the trouble;
I've been ignoring this transition for several years...
Should be solved now.
Paul
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--- End Message ---
